Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.63 AVERAGE
3.63 AVERAGE
Especially for a book published in the year of our lord 2022, the diversity of featured people is absolutely deplorable. The book should probably have been subtitled "A Western Male Homosexual History" instead and then this would have made more sense, but for it to portray itself as a selection of people chosen from all of history and from around the world and then deliver this selection of profiles, does not work. Well, I suppose it doesn't pretend ever to be diverse, but for some reason I expect "a homosexual history" to maybe sometimes include a few women and a few non-white people. To go over the numbers: of the 16 people discussed at length in the book, there was one woman, one person who was known at the time as a man but lived at least part of their life in drag as a woman, one non-white person, and one person from a country other than Western Europe or the United States (the latter two people being the same person), and one person who was some version of queer other than what we would today call either gay or bisexual (the drag queen from earlier in this sentence).
The choices of people were quite perplexing sometimes. Some were very interesting and indisputably bad (I'll save time by saying who didn't fit this in a bit) or gave an interesting insight into a larger context for queer culture in their time (Hadrian, Pietro Aretino, Jack Saul, the Weimar gays, Margaret Mead, Roy Cohn, Ronnie Kray sort of).
Many however were just fairly normal people who weren't particularly bad or at least no more than other people in their similar positions. This includes all the monarchs: Hadrian, James VI, and Frederick the Great. Hadrian was a dictator and a colonialist and indisputably terrible to the Jewish people he ruled over, but the book sort of skims over the badness of these parts of his rule to focus on his relationships and how him being queer affected court life. James VI oppressed Catholics but so did his predecessors and those who followed him. He also was on board with the execution of his mother. This sort of self-serving loyalty is common to basically every king ever so that's not unique. He let pretty boys in court have a bit more power than was responsible. Swap pretty boys out for girls and that's also every king ever. Most of my confusion with him though was why he was featured instead of Elizabeth I, who in my opinion is both more interesting and also neither gay (probably) nor a man and so would have lent a very necessary and interesting breadth to this book. The politics of England that would have been covered would have been nearly the same, since James ruled right after Elizabeth, but we could have learned about her life as a probably aromantic asexual person. Frederick the Great seemed to suck but no more than any other European monarch at the time. I remember nothing actually bad that he did from his chapter, other than ignore his wife from the moment they married which is just a bit of a dick move but she was set up for a great life on her own so that wouldn't have been the worst thing. I hardly remember anything from his chapter at all actually, which was a pretty common problem I found with the chapters. The writing was straight-forward and easy to follow but so rarely did any details actually stay with me. Which is certainly not a good thing. I read the book in about 5 days I think and am writing this now on the fifth day. I have an average memory.
Other people who were very average and not particularly bad include PIetro Aretino. He was kind of a dick it seems but his job as a satirist required it and what popular writer wasn't somewhat controversial at some point. I remember nothing at all about Jack Saul (the Irish sex worker and drag queen) that was bad except maybe being a sex worker qualifies them as being someone who wouldn't likely be upheld as a historical icon, but neither me nor the book look down on sex work itself as something bad. I remember absolutely nothing about Roger Casement. Can't comment on him at all. Yukio Mishima was a sadist but I can't remember anything at all beyond that, not even if he actually abused anyone for the sake of his sadism (bad) or if it just remained something he fantasized about (not someone who would be held as a role model, but I'd hardly call that bad in and of itself). I remember nothing about Philip Johnson either.
As for the bad people whose inclusion I agreed with (on the basis of their badness at least), first was Lawrence of Arabia, who was big on orientalism (in the Edward Said sense of the word) and had something to do with British interference in the Middle East which has had absolutley horrible repercussions into the present day. I need to do more research on this topic because it was interesting but I don't think this book covered it memorably or thoroughly enough. Friedrich Radszuweit was a Nazi sympathizer. Ernst Röhm was an actual Nazi. Margaret Mead was pretty racist and paved the way for a particularly infantalizing and sexualizing brand of racism in her field of anthropology. Her chapter was one of my favourites though, it was really interesting. J Edgar Hoover did something with establishing the CIA I think? Which can't be a good thing. But I've forgotten most of the parts about him and I don't think the chapter focused much at all on the legacy and impact of this, rather just the fact it happened. Roy Cohn was my other favourite chapter (or half-chapter) but I'm not sure how much of this is down to how the book covered him or my prior research into him and this period of American history. I say "research" but to be transparent, I mean a great love of Angels in America and a good long while perusing Wikipedia after. It was good to get the same information from a slightly more academically reputable source. Ronnie Kray was a gang leader and it was sort of cool to see the way his position allowed him to be for the most part respected and safe while being out and unapologetically queer. Pim Fortuyn was a massive racist.
My favourite aspect of the book was how it used each person's life to lead into an explanation of the wider understanding of queerness at the time or what the queer community or movements looked like where and when the person lived. How much space they had to move around as a queer person, how their position (often one of power) allowed them to be more open or how much they had to hide still. Given the people focused on, I learned a lot more about the seedier sides of queer culture that were so often the most well-known ones at the time but which have been since overlooked in favour of the ones which reflect us best or make us most palatable to the rest of society. I also really loved how much the book stressed understanding queerness as the people of whatever time and place did, so no one was called gay or bi unless they called themselves that, and the different dynamics like the Greek student/teacher one that continued for hundreds of years to be how people understood male queerness were explained. The aspects I've described in this last paragraph and the more interesting parts of the book like Mead and Cohn's sections did a lot to make up for the ways the book was so forgettable, but there is still no justifying the truly remarkable homogeneity of people featured. Looking at the podcast it seems that the ratios for diversity haven't particularly improved, either. The lack of racial diversity was especially confusing given the book's conclusion focused so heavily on the need for active anti-racism and the need for everyone to look out for the most oppressed among the queer community.
The choices of people were quite perplexing sometimes. Some were very interesting and indisputably bad (I'll save time by saying who didn't fit this in a bit) or gave an interesting insight into a larger context for queer culture in their time (Hadrian, Pietro Aretino, Jack Saul, the Weimar gays, Margaret Mead, Roy Cohn, Ronnie Kray sort of).
Many however were just fairly normal people who weren't particularly bad or at least no more than other people in their similar positions. This includes all the monarchs: Hadrian, James VI, and Frederick the Great. Hadrian was a dictator and a colonialist and indisputably terrible to the Jewish people he ruled over, but the book sort of skims over the badness of these parts of his rule to focus on his relationships and how him being queer affected court life. James VI oppressed Catholics but so did his predecessors and those who followed him. He also was on board with the execution of his mother. This sort of self-serving loyalty is common to basically every king ever so that's not unique. He let pretty boys in court have a bit more power than was responsible. Swap pretty boys out for girls and that's also every king ever. Most of my confusion with him though was why he was featured instead of Elizabeth I, who in my opinion is both more interesting and also neither gay (probably) nor a man and so would have lent a very necessary and interesting breadth to this book. The politics of England that would have been covered would have been nearly the same, since James ruled right after Elizabeth, but we could have learned about her life as a probably aromantic asexual person. Frederick the Great seemed to suck but no more than any other European monarch at the time. I remember nothing actually bad that he did from his chapter, other than ignore his wife from the moment they married which is just a bit of a dick move but she was set up for a great life on her own so that wouldn't have been the worst thing. I hardly remember anything from his chapter at all actually, which was a pretty common problem I found with the chapters. The writing was straight-forward and easy to follow but so rarely did any details actually stay with me. Which is certainly not a good thing. I read the book in about 5 days I think and am writing this now on the fifth day. I have an average memory.
Other people who were very average and not particularly bad include PIetro Aretino. He was kind of a dick it seems but his job as a satirist required it and what popular writer wasn't somewhat controversial at some point. I remember nothing at all about Jack Saul (the Irish sex worker and drag queen) that was bad except maybe being a sex worker qualifies them as being someone who wouldn't likely be upheld as a historical icon, but neither me nor the book look down on sex work itself as something bad. I remember absolutely nothing about Roger Casement. Can't comment on him at all. Yukio Mishima was a sadist but I can't remember anything at all beyond that, not even if he actually abused anyone for the sake of his sadism (bad) or if it just remained something he fantasized about (not someone who would be held as a role model, but I'd hardly call that bad in and of itself). I remember nothing about Philip Johnson either.
As for the bad people whose inclusion I agreed with (on the basis of their badness at least), first was Lawrence of Arabia, who was big on orientalism (in the Edward Said sense of the word) and had something to do with British interference in the Middle East which has had absolutley horrible repercussions into the present day. I need to do more research on this topic because it was interesting but I don't think this book covered it memorably or thoroughly enough. Friedrich Radszuweit was a Nazi sympathizer. Ernst Röhm was an actual Nazi. Margaret Mead was pretty racist and paved the way for a particularly infantalizing and sexualizing brand of racism in her field of anthropology. Her chapter was one of my favourites though, it was really interesting. J Edgar Hoover did something with establishing the CIA I think? Which can't be a good thing. But I've forgotten most of the parts about him and I don't think the chapter focused much at all on the legacy and impact of this, rather just the fact it happened. Roy Cohn was my other favourite chapter (or half-chapter) but I'm not sure how much of this is down to how the book covered him or my prior research into him and this period of American history. I say "research" but to be transparent, I mean a great love of Angels in America and a good long while perusing Wikipedia after. It was good to get the same information from a slightly more academically reputable source. Ronnie Kray was a gang leader and it was sort of cool to see the way his position allowed him to be for the most part respected and safe while being out and unapologetically queer. Pim Fortuyn was a massive racist.
My favourite aspect of the book was how it used each person's life to lead into an explanation of the wider understanding of queerness at the time or what the queer community or movements looked like where and when the person lived. How much space they had to move around as a queer person, how their position (often one of power) allowed them to be more open or how much they had to hide still. Given the people focused on, I learned a lot more about the seedier sides of queer culture that were so often the most well-known ones at the time but which have been since overlooked in favour of the ones which reflect us best or make us most palatable to the rest of society. I also really loved how much the book stressed understanding queerness as the people of whatever time and place did, so no one was called gay or bi unless they called themselves that, and the different dynamics like the Greek student/teacher one that continued for hundreds of years to be how people understood male queerness were explained. The aspects I've described in this last paragraph and the more interesting parts of the book like Mead and Cohn's sections did a lot to make up for the ways the book was so forgettable, but there is still no justifying the truly remarkable homogeneity of people featured. Looking at the podcast it seems that the ratios for diversity haven't particularly improved, either. The lack of racial diversity was especially confusing given the book's conclusion focused so heavily on the need for active anti-racism and the need for everyone to look out for the most oppressed among the queer community.
informative
medium-paced
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Just not for me at this moment - committed to no time wasting
challenging
informative
lighthearted
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
medium-paced
funny
informative
medium-paced
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
I really wanted to like this book. The concept is great, but unfortunately the content was so disorganized that it became a chore to finish.
The introduction of the book lays out a strong, clear thesis, but it doesn't take long for it to be forgotten completely. (Quick side note: if the focus of the book is supposed to be societal impacts of and on "bad" gay men, what is Margaret Mead doing in there?! I enjoyed reading about her, but what?!)
In this book, people with shitty opinions are put on par with literal Nazis. Some misdeeds are presented neutrally while others are presented with clear condemnation from the author(s). Each and every chapter goes on tangents that drag so long that it's hard to remember who the subject was in the first place. It was rough.
On the positive, you can feel the love and care that went into compiling information for this book. The anecdotes and scene-setting were very thoroughly researched. I'm definitely going to look further into a lot of the people and events referenced throughout. This book also has a very handy reading list at the end!
In short, the poor execution of this book unfortunately overtakes what is a very compelling concept.
The introduction of the book lays out a strong, clear thesis, but it doesn't take long for it to be forgotten completely. (Quick side note: if the focus of the book is supposed to be societal impacts of and on "bad" gay men, what is Margaret Mead doing in there?! I enjoyed reading about her, but what?!)
In this book, people with shitty opinions are put on par with literal Nazis. Some misdeeds are presented neutrally while others are presented with clear condemnation from the author(s). Each and every chapter goes on tangents that drag so long that it's hard to remember who the subject was in the first place. It was rough.
On the positive, you can feel the love and care that went into compiling information for this book. The anecdotes and scene-setting were very thoroughly researched. I'm definitely going to look further into a lot of the people and events referenced throughout. This book also has a very handy reading list at the end!
In short, the poor execution of this book unfortunately overtakes what is a very compelling concept.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Homophobia, Pedophilia, Violence
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced